Weed Management in Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Resistant Sugar Beet

Kemp, Nathan J.; Taylor, Erin C.; Renner, Karen A.

doi:10.1614/wt-07-114.1

Cited by 15 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Weed management in sugarbeet crops grown in the southeastern United States has not been previously studied. In traditional northern sugarbeet production regions, effective weed control options include glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant varieties (Armstrong and Sprague 2010; Kahn 2015; Kemp et al 2009; Kniss et al 2004; Wilson and Sbatella 2011). With widespread incidence of weed resistance to glyphosate in the southeastern United States, it is prudent to lessen selection pressure and develop diverse weed management systems in alternative crops that are not reliant on glyphosate (Owen 2016; Shaner 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Cool-Season Weeds in Sugarbeet Grown for Biofuel in the Southeastern United States

Johnson¹,

Webster

Grey

et al. 2018

Weed Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sugarbeet, grown for biofuel, is being considered as an alternate cool-season crop in the southeastern U.S. coastal plain. Typically, the crop would be seeded in the autumn, then grow through the winter and be harvested the following spring. Labels for herbicides registered for use on sugarbeet grown in the traditional sugarbeet production regions do not list any of the cool-season weeds common in the southeastern United States. Field trials were initiated near Ty Ty, GA, to evaluate all possible combinations of ethofumesate applied PRE, phenmedipham+desmedipham applied POST, clopyralid POST, and triflusulfuron POST for cool-season weed control in sugarbeet. Phenmedipham+desmedipham alone and in combination with clopyralid and/or triflusulfuron effectively controlled cutleaf eveningprimrose, lesser swinecress, henbit, and corn spurry when applied to seedling weeds. Ethofumesate PRE alone was not as effective in controlling cool-season weeds compared to treatments containing phenmedipham+desmedipham POST. However, ethofumesate PRE applied sequentially with phenmedipham+desmedipham POST improved weed control consistency. Clopyralid and/or triflusulfuron alone did not adequately control cutleaf eveningprimrose. Triflusulfuron alone effectively controlled wild radish. In the 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 seasons, December-applied POST herbicides did not injure sugarbeet. However, in the 2015–2016 season POST herbicides were applied in late October. On the day of treatment, the maximum temperature was 25.4 C, which exceeded the established upper temperature limit of 22 C for safe application of phenmedipham+desmedipham, and sugarbeet plants were severely injured. In the southeastern United States, temperatures frequently exceed 22 C in early autumn, which may limit phenmedipham+desmedipham use for controlling troublesome cool-season weeds of sugarbeet in the region. Weed control options need to be expanded to compensate for this limitation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Cool-Season Weeds in Sugarbeet Grown for Biofuel in the Southeastern United States

Johnson¹,

Webster

Grey

et al. 2018

Weed Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, conventional POST herbicides did not effectively control weeds with more than two leaves, so many herbicide applications were necessary and seldom resulted in 100% control (Dale and Renner 2005;Dale et al 2006). With the introduction of glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet, growers could achieve excellent control of many weed species that affect sugar quality and yield (Kemp et al 2009;Kniss et al 2004). When compared with conventional herbicide treatments, glyphosate was less expensive and fewer applications were needed to control weeds with greater economic returns (Dexter and Luecke 1999;Guza et al 2002;Kemp et al 2009;Kniss et al 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Glyphosate on Rhizoctonia Crown and Root Rot (Rhizoctonia solani) in Glyphosate-Resistant Sugarbeet

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous greenhouse studies with a noncommercial glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet variety indicated that susceptibility to Rhizoctonia crown and root rot could increase after glyphosate was applied. Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted in 2008 and 2009 to determine if glyphosate influenced disease severity in potential commercially available varieties of glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet. In the first greenhouse experiment in 2008, Hilleshög 9027RR, the most tolerant variety to Rhizoctonia crown and root rot, exhibited an increase in disease severity when glyphosate was applied. There were no significant differences between herbicide treatments in Hilleshög 9028RR, and glyphosate decreased disease severity in Hilleshög 9032RR when compared with the no-herbicide treatment. Experiments conducted to determine if glyphosate influenced Rhizoctonia solani growth in vitro indicated that glyphosate did not increase the radial growth of R. solani, except at 10× (190 µg ae ml−1) the normal rate of glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate (AMS). Field and additional greenhouse experiments were conducted using four commercial varieties. Differences in disease severity were observed when comparing varieties, but glyphosate did not significantly influence the severity of Rhizoctonia crown and root rot when compared with the no-herbicide control. Choosing a glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet variety with the best demonstrated tolerance to Rhizoctonia crown and root rot is an important factor in reducing disease severity and maintaining sugarbeet yield.

show abstract

“…In traditional sugarbeet production regions of the United States, weeds were primarily controlled with ethofumesate, phenmedipham+desmedipham, clopyralid, and triflusulfuron until 2005. The commercialization of glyphosate-resistant varieties allowed for glyphosate to be applied directly to sugarbeet (Armstrong and Sprague 2010; Khan 2015; Kemp et al 2009; Kniss et al 2004; Wilson and Sbatella 2011). Glyphosate use in sugarbeet greatly simplified and improved weed management over previous systems and was heralded as a significant milestone (Morishita 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultivation and Reduced-Rate Herbicides Weed Control in Sugarbeet Grown for Biofuel

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sugarbeet, grown for biofuel, is being considered as an alternate cool-season crop in the southeastern United States. Previous research identified ethofumesate PRE and phenmedipham + desmedipham POST as herbicides that controlled troublesome cool-season weeds in the region, specifically cutleaf evening-primrose. Research trials were conducted from 2014 through 2016 to evaluate an integrated system of sweep cultivation and reduced rates of ethofumesate PRE and/or phenmedipham+desmedipham POST for weed control in sugarbeet grown for biofuel. There were no interactions between the main effects of cultivation and herbicides for control of cutleaf evening-primrose and other cool-season species in two out of three years. Cultivation improved control of cool-season weeds, but the effect was largely independent of control provided by herbicides. Of the herbicide combinations evaluated, the best overall cool-season weed control was from systems that included either a 1/2X or 1X rate of phenmedipham+desmedipham POST. Either rate of ethofumesate PRE was less effective than phenmedipham+desmedipham POST. Despite improved cool-season weed control, sugarbeet yield was not affected by cultivation each year of the study. Sugarbeet yields were greater when treated with any herbicide combination that included either a 1/2X or 1X rate of phenmedipham+desmedipham POST compared with either rate of ethofumesate PRE alone or the nontreated control. These results indicate that cultivation has a very limited role in sugarbeet grown for biofuel. The premise of effective weed control based on an integration of cultivation and reduced herbicide rates does not appear to be viable for sugarbeet grown for biofuel.

show abstract

Weed Management in Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Resistant Sugar Beet

Cited by 15 publications

References 25 publications

Managing Cool-Season Weeds in Sugarbeet Grown for Biofuel in the Southeastern United States

Managing Cool-Season Weeds in Sugarbeet Grown for Biofuel in the Southeastern United States

Influence of Glyphosate on Rhizoctonia Crown and Root Rot (Rhizoctonia solani) in Glyphosate-Resistant Sugarbeet

Cultivation and Reduced-Rate Herbicides Weed Control in Sugarbeet Grown for Biofuel

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About